[dance varmint]

The post-Saddam UN needs reform, and I predict that France will be demoted. Short of disbanding the UN, which is fine with me, I recommend that France's permanent seat and veto on the SC be given to India. Any good reason why not? Muslim opposition would not be a good reason.

Also, is there any way we can strip Germany of UN power? They don't have a veto now, correct?

[Mike Irwin]

Can't be done.

No provision for it in the UN Charter.

As one of the 5 permanent members, France's position is unassailable.

[Blackhawk]

Sadly, Mike's right. :(

[agricola]

another reason is Pakistan.

[Mike Irwin]

Oh yeah, the BIGGEST reason why it would never happen?

Say that SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, a proposal to oust France were approved by the General Assembly.

That vote wouldn't do it, or mean much, as all actions involving the security council must be approved by the security council.

So, the resolution is introduced in the security council...

France would simply veto it.

As a permanent member, France's veto is absolute.

A veto by any one of the permanent members instantly kills a proposal before the security council.



As for your other question, Germany is not a permanent member of the security council. They lost WW II, so they don't get to play.

I'm not sure if they're serving a 2-year-term as an administrative member (I think that's what they call them) of the security council or not.

If so, they don't have a veto, they have a vote. The permanent members have veto votes (what I call them).

In order for a resolution to pass the security council, all 5 permanent members must agree (no vetos) and a majority of the administrative members must also agree.

A resolution could obtain 100% yes votes from the admin members, but still be killed by a single veto vote by one of the permanent members.

[DadOfThree]

Don't redo it, do away with it.

[dance varmint]

I wonder if France can block the UN from recognizing the ambassador from the future replacement for the government of Iraq. What a CF that would be.

[Mike Irwin]

Hum...

Very good question, Dance, one to which I've no clue.

Iraq is currently a member of the UN, I don't know how a change in government would affect the membership.

[Blackhawk]

I wonder if France can block the UN from recognizing the ambassador from the future replacement for the government of Iraq. What a CF that would be.

That's one of the beauties of the UN being on the outside looking in. When the US facilitates a popular representative government in Iraq, the UN won't have any say in it. Any resolutions France or other FrancoFurters propose inimical to the interests of Iraq and the US will simply be vetoed by the U.S.

[trooper]

Another reason:

India is governed by religious fundamentalists, too. It doesn't make it any better that they happen to be non-muslims.

Sure, give a country who is on the brink of nuclear war with its neighbour over a small strip of land a permanent seat in the security council...

I guess that some members around here would rather have ANY country than France in the security council. This is shortsighted IMO.


Regards,

Trooper

[JPM70535]

Every time I hear the words, United Nations, it makes my want to puke. They are totally useless. The only thing they are good at is debate. They can talk a crisis to death and never make a decision.

I think it is long past time to stop paying the lions share of the UN operating budget. If third world nations, still barely out of the stone age, have the same status as the US, then let them pay an equal share. See how long the UN lasts trying to collect dues from Jamaica, or Kurdistan, or Nigeria. ROTS O RUCK!!!

[Mike Irwin]

"See how long the UN lasts trying to collect dues from Jamaica, or Kurdistan, or Nigeria."

We had a lengthy discussion about this very subject a few days ago.

Expecting the United Nations to collapse economically if the US withdraws unilaterally is naive.

There are more than enough wealthy nations in the world that will gladly absorb the US share of dues if for no other reason than to ram it in America's face that we're not the omnipotent worldmaker some like to think we are.

Yeah, we're the last true superpower at this point in time, but there are more than a few powers in the next rank.